I happened to read one of cat's comments about TC on another forum, and I think I got the feeling that maybe he is not really a fan of the department.
It also seems that it is hard for any of us , as indivduals to deal with problems with TC because we are simply a lone voice in the wilderness or, as I note on many of the forums, so damned scared of vindictive reprecusions by TC damaging to our career.
So how about this. Cat, start another forum for those that have had a problem with TC. Somewhere where people can get some support and maybe advice from those that h ave been there. I am not thinking of the usual kind of rambling forum or war stories, but a real help forum for others.
I singled you out, Cat, because you seem to be one who is willing to speak out , can keep on topic, and put a sentence together wihtout all the cliches.
I bet there are alot who would be interested.
As a last note, I tried starting a forum on the illegality of random ramp checks (they are) and the overwhelming respones I got was that most pilots are scared spitless of TC and will let TC trample all over their rights.
So come on folks. Instead of whining and bellyaching lets bring the beast out of the darkness and fight it.
Now how about it. Anyone out there
TC and the Cat
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
marktheone
- Rank 7
- Posts: 718
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:07 am
- Location: An airplane.
OK, I'll bite on the legality of ramp checks. I would say that they ARE legal, here's why. Airport property is, I think I am correct, leased by the GOv. to the operator so therefore TC retains some authority. If you want to really split the hair, there is no private property ownership in Canada anyways.
Let's hear your side of the ramp check thing.
Mark
Let's hear your side of the ramp check thing.
Mark
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Quote :
" As a last note, I tried starting a forum on the illegality of random ramp checks (they are) and the overwhelming respones I got was that most pilots are scared spitless of TC and will let TC trample all over their rights. "
Exactly, and for good reason.
In many countries if you speak out against those in power they put you in prison or kill you.
In Canada if you speak out against those in power in TC they have the power to destroy your career or company, and they do, far more often than many here realize.
The reason that I speak out is because there is not much more they can to me.
Several years ago some business people in aviation set up a web site for exactly that reason, to expose wrongdoing by the regulator.
The site is still there, although it has not been used for some time.
Anyone wanting to find out how the regulator works behind the scenes should read the site...
Here it is:
http://www.underground.tc.ca/
Enjoy, it is interesting what is posted there by many posters, including me and I name every one of the TC top managers who fit the description of dishonest, power abusing bullies.
Cat
" As a last note, I tried starting a forum on the illegality of random ramp checks (they are) and the overwhelming respones I got was that most pilots are scared spitless of TC and will let TC trample all over their rights. "
Exactly, and for good reason.
In many countries if you speak out against those in power they put you in prison or kill you.
In Canada if you speak out against those in power in TC they have the power to destroy your career or company, and they do, far more often than many here realize.
The reason that I speak out is because there is not much more they can to me.
Several years ago some business people in aviation set up a web site for exactly that reason, to expose wrongdoing by the regulator.
The site is still there, although it has not been used for some time.
Anyone wanting to find out how the regulator works behind the scenes should read the site...
Here it is:
http://www.underground.tc.ca/
Enjoy, it is interesting what is posted there by many posters, including me and I name every one of the TC top managers who fit the description of dishonest, power abusing bullies.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I did go to that website. Never knew it existed, and very interesting. To bad there is not much traffic on it. Maybe others dont know. Maybe there is only a few of us who recognize how evil TC has become using the motto of "safety" in order to expand and bring a zealot"s conviction to their task that even the inquisition would admire.
Check out the website that cat driver mentions.
And if you have a problem, let people know.
Check out the website that cat driver mentions.
And if you have a problem, let people know.
-
Cargo Pilot
- Rank 3
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:06 pm
Bottom line on ramp checks is TC cannot cause a delay to you or your client for the purpose of a random ramp check. I have only been ramped twice and both times the TC guys started the process by asking me if I had time for them. The first time I was waiting for pax and I was not aware I could say no to TC, so I got ramped.
The second time I told them I was too busy and didn't have time for them. The guy understood and I stayed out of sight until my pax arrived.
All this means nothing if they see you doing something they don't like. If you are about to depart in a flying ice cube or if they witness you climb into the cockpit without securing baggage/freight, don't expect the 'too busy' excuse to get you off the hook.
The second time I told them I was too busy and didn't have time for them. The guy understood and I stayed out of sight until my pax arrived.
All this means nothing if they see you doing something they don't like. If you are about to depart in a flying ice cube or if they witness you climb into the cockpit without securing baggage/freight, don't expect the 'too busy' excuse to get you off the hook.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Like everything else in dealing with any Government official you will find good and bad.
The bottom line is unless they have a supportable reason to believe safety is being compromized they can only demand that you produce the required documents.
You have no obligation to communicate with them about any other issue.
However if you do get involved in a situation where they decide to force the issue, you had better have reliable witnesses to what happens, because they can and will make life tough for you if they so desire..if you let them.
Me personally I deal with each individual issue as it comes up, if they are polite and reasonable I will try and co-operate, until I feel something is just not right.
In any event unless you know the inspector it is best to not get to involved in conversation and just excuse yourself and leave.
Cat
The bottom line is unless they have a supportable reason to believe safety is being compromized they can only demand that you produce the required documents.
You have no obligation to communicate with them about any other issue.
However if you do get involved in a situation where they decide to force the issue, you had better have reliable witnesses to what happens, because they can and will make life tough for you if they so desire..if you let them.
Me personally I deal with each individual issue as it comes up, if they are polite and reasonable I will try and co-operate, until I feel something is just not right.
In any event unless you know the inspector it is best to not get to involved in conversation and just excuse yourself and leave.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Elbarto:
Since I'm on the road with little else to do but hang around the hotel and make an abnormally high number of posts to AvCanada the last few days, please enlighten a poor working stiff as to why/how ramp checks are illegal .. and preferably post some reference material of substance rather than just " 'cause I think so."
I've gone through a few ramp checks in my day and never had any substantial problems but then I'm sort of "buddy buddy" with the company OPI (from whom I've actually learned a great deal and work well with him in a co-operative atmosphere)... and almost all of the C&BA Inspectors in our region have conducted PPC's on me at one time or another over the last 30+ years. Once in awhile I've had the misery to run into a jerk or two .. most recently with one guy who used to work in Enforcement who seems to have a major chip on his shoulder.
My "Buddies" tell me he is detested inside the dept by all who work with him so I don't think that DoT is the problem per se so much as the very rare jerk that ruins the good day-in-day-out work of the other 90+% of the guys who are out there working on behalf of the travelling public to make sure the company is at least meeting the minimum standard required by the regs.
A long time ago I had the miserable experience of dealing with a fellow from the old Western Region that must have wanted to be a member of the SS but was born too late .. and on the wrong side of the war. I humoured him during his tirades and then went around him and dealt with his colleagues whenever possible....one of whom was an excellent guy that often got teamed with this clown on the road trips and couldn't stand him. If its any consolation, the rest of the inspectors in the office thought he was a sanctimonius idiot too. In my case, the persecution didn't progress to the same level as what happened in Cat's story, but it gave me a taste of what could happen when you deal with a single jerk who would be a failure no matter what job he did .. from migrant fruit picker to janitor to cardiologist to justice of the supreme court.
The unfortunate thing is these rare "loose cannons" don't seem to be able to be controlled, modified, or fired by their managers .. or at the very least shuffled off to some special projects office position where they have no contact with the public.....like maybe Ellesmere Island.
That said, there are some pilots and companies out there that make me shiver due to their ignorance which is covered by bravado ... or they think they know a lot more than anybody else on the planet about aviation because they have 3,000 hours ... super basic things like tying down a load of baggage with something more substantial than butcher cord, flying an airplane in known & reported ice when its not certified to do so but swallowing a load of BS from their seniors that the airplane is indeed equipped to do so despite what the manufacturer's aeronautical engineers say, or readily flying an unairworthy airplane to get the trip done, or flying past an inspection, not writing snags in the logbook....and the list goes on, and on and on yet again.
Sometimes these DoT guys are doing you the favour of your life by showing you that what you're doing isn't only short of what's required by the regs as a min standard, but will also get you dead if you keep doing what you're doing, the way you're doing it. The kind of info you should be getting from your Chief Pilot if he was doing his job looking after you the way he should be.
About 25+ years ago I was a smart little know it all who was flying for the 4th largest charter operator in the country (by number of aircraft registered) and believed everything the company owner, Ops Mgr, and Chief Plot told me as if they were bringing down the "aviation sermon from the mount for the day."
Things like the C-310 will haul a huge bag of ice, the airplane will fly just fine 1,000 lbs over weight and still climb away on one if you had a failure, they had special authority from DoT to fly off airways with only one ADF, that the training times in the Ops Manual were just DoT BS forced on them by an overzealous Inspector and that I wouldn't have any trouble passing a PPC with only .8 hrs training and oh .. please sign off that I'd been given the full min of 4 hrs called for in the manual before the ride, that we had special takeoff limits that allowed us to go in 1/4 mile vis .... and we could fudge that a little if required, that the company's airplanes were all on a so-called progressive maintenance program but when my 50 hours between inspection signouts was up, to just leave a few blank lines in the Journey Log, falsify log entries for weights and airtime ... and the list goes on, and on.
When I flew on the west coast doing 10 hrs of airtime a day in 3/5 of screwall for forward vis and maybe 200 ft vis out the side window at 3 ft off the water, you were considered to be a gutless coward if you cancelled a trip at a time when the regs called for a min of 2 miles vis. The Ops Mgr would pull you into the office and show you a filing cabinet drawer full of applications from other pilots that wanted to work there ... I got fired once and rehired later in the day because I cancelled a Beaver trip when the vis at the hangar was less than 200 ft in fog. Several times I almost hit ships when they came up out of the mist with a second or two warning to pull up almost hitting the rigging, then doing an instrument letdown on the other side of the ship just as if you were doing a glassy water landing ... when the floats touched the water, you'd climb 5 feet and continue on.
When I went on the Otter, the company thought you were a snivelling scumbag not worth a quarter of your mileage pay if you couldn't get the airplane airborne with the rear ladder almost under water due to the overload....or homing on a lighthouse marine beacon with your guts grinding hoping to hell you'd see the shoreline coming out of the murk before you hit it.... and I did it day after day because I was totally clueless. I was so clueless I didn't even know I was clueless.
I thought I was a real hot-shot who was just out there doing a real days work as a west coast line pilot....like all the other guys in the operation did all day long. I was drinking a 26'er a night just to get to sleep and was waking up with nightmares.
It wasn't until an Inspector took me out for a beer one evening after an IFR ride in that 4th largest charter company and straightened me out on all this super-basic stuff that I finally got the message that I had been lied to by my "leaders" who had "Big names" in the industry ... and in doing so likely saved my life. He sure changed the way I looked at the safety regs. Too many of my friends and their passengers are in coffins because they went with the "industry norm" of the day and left widows, kids with no dad and nice loving parents with no sons.
Again, I don't mean to blow nice white puffy clouds of smoke up everyones butt about how great DoT inspectors are, but to look at every last one of them as "The Devil's Spawn" with the symbol 666 tattooed above their ears sent as emmisaries to make way for the coming of the aviation anti-christ is just pure bs and you should have your choke chain pulled hard and told to "Sit" if you spread that senseless crud for no other reason that to cause sensationalism.
Maybe some of the guys who are flying crappy airplanes for crummy companies and not knowing any better (like I did) should indeed be scared shitless of the Inspectors doing ramp checks. For just reason! The same way a drunk driver with a suspended licence should be scared shitless by the sight of a roadside check stop up ahead on the road.
Something to understand ... if you are flying clapped out airplanes into miserable weather and bend an airframe, or god forbid ... hurt or kill somebody, those scumbags at the top of the company will turn on you in a heartbeat and throw you to the wolves to save themselves without a microsecond of thought. It will be your name in the newspaper and on the TV news as being the stunned F...head that killed those fine folks that got on your airplane. Maybe you don't mind being remembered that way while your wife is crying by the graveside, but not me thanks.
As it was expained to me, ... remember, TC guys don't work for you, .... they work for Joe and Janet Schmoe who pay to get on your airplane that are entitled to ... at the very least, the legal minimum standard. Those pax are not looking to be flown around for a thrill as if they are getting on a ride at Disneyland....nor do they expect to be flown in the same way and standard as the great death defying daredevil pioneer bushpilots of the 1920's with no safety equipment in airplanes that should be scrapped and melted down for frying pans.
Things have changed in expectations.
Elbarto, I await your legal references with great interest. I also would like to see what method you propose to ensure that a scumbag operator across the ramp doesn't undercut your efforts to run a profitable, safe, reliable operation that runs on scientific principles as opposed to the size of his balls and level of courage. The present Transport Canada system is far from perfect and faultless, but what would you replace it with?
Fog
Since I'm on the road with little else to do but hang around the hotel and make an abnormally high number of posts to AvCanada the last few days, please enlighten a poor working stiff as to why/how ramp checks are illegal .. and preferably post some reference material of substance rather than just " 'cause I think so."
I've gone through a few ramp checks in my day and never had any substantial problems but then I'm sort of "buddy buddy" with the company OPI (from whom I've actually learned a great deal and work well with him in a co-operative atmosphere)... and almost all of the C&BA Inspectors in our region have conducted PPC's on me at one time or another over the last 30+ years. Once in awhile I've had the misery to run into a jerk or two .. most recently with one guy who used to work in Enforcement who seems to have a major chip on his shoulder.
My "Buddies" tell me he is detested inside the dept by all who work with him so I don't think that DoT is the problem per se so much as the very rare jerk that ruins the good day-in-day-out work of the other 90+% of the guys who are out there working on behalf of the travelling public to make sure the company is at least meeting the minimum standard required by the regs.
A long time ago I had the miserable experience of dealing with a fellow from the old Western Region that must have wanted to be a member of the SS but was born too late .. and on the wrong side of the war. I humoured him during his tirades and then went around him and dealt with his colleagues whenever possible....one of whom was an excellent guy that often got teamed with this clown on the road trips and couldn't stand him. If its any consolation, the rest of the inspectors in the office thought he was a sanctimonius idiot too. In my case, the persecution didn't progress to the same level as what happened in Cat's story, but it gave me a taste of what could happen when you deal with a single jerk who would be a failure no matter what job he did .. from migrant fruit picker to janitor to cardiologist to justice of the supreme court.
The unfortunate thing is these rare "loose cannons" don't seem to be able to be controlled, modified, or fired by their managers .. or at the very least shuffled off to some special projects office position where they have no contact with the public.....like maybe Ellesmere Island.
That said, there are some pilots and companies out there that make me shiver due to their ignorance which is covered by bravado ... or they think they know a lot more than anybody else on the planet about aviation because they have 3,000 hours ... super basic things like tying down a load of baggage with something more substantial than butcher cord, flying an airplane in known & reported ice when its not certified to do so but swallowing a load of BS from their seniors that the airplane is indeed equipped to do so despite what the manufacturer's aeronautical engineers say, or readily flying an unairworthy airplane to get the trip done, or flying past an inspection, not writing snags in the logbook....and the list goes on, and on and on yet again.
Sometimes these DoT guys are doing you the favour of your life by showing you that what you're doing isn't only short of what's required by the regs as a min standard, but will also get you dead if you keep doing what you're doing, the way you're doing it. The kind of info you should be getting from your Chief Pilot if he was doing his job looking after you the way he should be.
About 25+ years ago I was a smart little know it all who was flying for the 4th largest charter operator in the country (by number of aircraft registered) and believed everything the company owner, Ops Mgr, and Chief Plot told me as if they were bringing down the "aviation sermon from the mount for the day."
Things like the C-310 will haul a huge bag of ice, the airplane will fly just fine 1,000 lbs over weight and still climb away on one if you had a failure, they had special authority from DoT to fly off airways with only one ADF, that the training times in the Ops Manual were just DoT BS forced on them by an overzealous Inspector and that I wouldn't have any trouble passing a PPC with only .8 hrs training and oh .. please sign off that I'd been given the full min of 4 hrs called for in the manual before the ride, that we had special takeoff limits that allowed us to go in 1/4 mile vis .... and we could fudge that a little if required, that the company's airplanes were all on a so-called progressive maintenance program but when my 50 hours between inspection signouts was up, to just leave a few blank lines in the Journey Log, falsify log entries for weights and airtime ... and the list goes on, and on.
When I flew on the west coast doing 10 hrs of airtime a day in 3/5 of screwall for forward vis and maybe 200 ft vis out the side window at 3 ft off the water, you were considered to be a gutless coward if you cancelled a trip at a time when the regs called for a min of 2 miles vis. The Ops Mgr would pull you into the office and show you a filing cabinet drawer full of applications from other pilots that wanted to work there ... I got fired once and rehired later in the day because I cancelled a Beaver trip when the vis at the hangar was less than 200 ft in fog. Several times I almost hit ships when they came up out of the mist with a second or two warning to pull up almost hitting the rigging, then doing an instrument letdown on the other side of the ship just as if you were doing a glassy water landing ... when the floats touched the water, you'd climb 5 feet and continue on.
When I went on the Otter, the company thought you were a snivelling scumbag not worth a quarter of your mileage pay if you couldn't get the airplane airborne with the rear ladder almost under water due to the overload....or homing on a lighthouse marine beacon with your guts grinding hoping to hell you'd see the shoreline coming out of the murk before you hit it.... and I did it day after day because I was totally clueless. I was so clueless I didn't even know I was clueless.
I thought I was a real hot-shot who was just out there doing a real days work as a west coast line pilot....like all the other guys in the operation did all day long. I was drinking a 26'er a night just to get to sleep and was waking up with nightmares.
It wasn't until an Inspector took me out for a beer one evening after an IFR ride in that 4th largest charter company and straightened me out on all this super-basic stuff that I finally got the message that I had been lied to by my "leaders" who had "Big names" in the industry ... and in doing so likely saved my life. He sure changed the way I looked at the safety regs. Too many of my friends and their passengers are in coffins because they went with the "industry norm" of the day and left widows, kids with no dad and nice loving parents with no sons.
Again, I don't mean to blow nice white puffy clouds of smoke up everyones butt about how great DoT inspectors are, but to look at every last one of them as "The Devil's Spawn" with the symbol 666 tattooed above their ears sent as emmisaries to make way for the coming of the aviation anti-christ is just pure bs and you should have your choke chain pulled hard and told to "Sit" if you spread that senseless crud for no other reason that to cause sensationalism.
Maybe some of the guys who are flying crappy airplanes for crummy companies and not knowing any better (like I did) should indeed be scared shitless of the Inspectors doing ramp checks. For just reason! The same way a drunk driver with a suspended licence should be scared shitless by the sight of a roadside check stop up ahead on the road.
Something to understand ... if you are flying clapped out airplanes into miserable weather and bend an airframe, or god forbid ... hurt or kill somebody, those scumbags at the top of the company will turn on you in a heartbeat and throw you to the wolves to save themselves without a microsecond of thought. It will be your name in the newspaper and on the TV news as being the stunned F...head that killed those fine folks that got on your airplane. Maybe you don't mind being remembered that way while your wife is crying by the graveside, but not me thanks.
As it was expained to me, ... remember, TC guys don't work for you, .... they work for Joe and Janet Schmoe who pay to get on your airplane that are entitled to ... at the very least, the legal minimum standard. Those pax are not looking to be flown around for a thrill as if they are getting on a ride at Disneyland....nor do they expect to be flown in the same way and standard as the great death defying daredevil pioneer bushpilots of the 1920's with no safety equipment in airplanes that should be scrapped and melted down for frying pans.
Things have changed in expectations.
Elbarto, I await your legal references with great interest. I also would like to see what method you propose to ensure that a scumbag operator across the ramp doesn't undercut your efforts to run a profitable, safe, reliable operation that runs on scientific principles as opposed to the size of his balls and level of courage. The present Transport Canada system is far from perfect and faultless, but what would you replace it with?
Fog
Last edited by The Old Fogducker on Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Fog, your thoughts are pretty well the way it should be...except this is the real problem..
You said:
" The unfortunate thing is these rare "loose cannons" don't seem to be able to be controlled, modified, or fired by their managers .. "
Exactly, regardless of how serious their actions are, even to breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold and enforce they are protected.
I know of no other place in society where such behaviour is condoned and upheld , except in these Government positions.
I had exactly this same discussion with the RDG TC a couple of years ago and it was like trying to talk to a stone..it is so ingrained in their system these people really believe they are unacountable.
And in the Pacific Region they are not " RARE " we have quite a few.
Cat
You said:
" The unfortunate thing is these rare "loose cannons" don't seem to be able to be controlled, modified, or fired by their managers .. "
Exactly, regardless of how serious their actions are, even to breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold and enforce they are protected.
I know of no other place in society where such behaviour is condoned and upheld , except in these Government positions.
I had exactly this same discussion with the RDG TC a couple of years ago and it was like trying to talk to a stone..it is so ingrained in their system these people really believe they are unacountable.
And in the Pacific Region they are not " RARE " we have quite a few.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Overgross:
Yup ... that'll work.
Cat ... maybe they want to have a team of Rottweillers out there. Can't comment due to lack of info anymore ... I've moved eastward. Didn't get a sniff of help when I complained to them 25+ years ago except to be told "You're the pilot in command and you're responsible to make sure no regulations are broken" ... gee thanks a million for the backup.
It wasn't until we had a minor Palace Revolt and all of the pilots refused to fly enmasse that we made any progress after losing an airplane. We agreed we wouldn't fly in anything less than a 1/4 mile vis .... when the legal min was 2 miles. A quarter mile seemed like we'd all moved to the retirement home after what we had been working in before that. As a part of the "negotiation process" I had to threaten to get a CTV & CBC TV news crew on site before they decided to start talking sense.
Fog
Yup ... that'll work.
Cat ... maybe they want to have a team of Rottweillers out there. Can't comment due to lack of info anymore ... I've moved eastward. Didn't get a sniff of help when I complained to them 25+ years ago except to be told "You're the pilot in command and you're responsible to make sure no regulations are broken" ... gee thanks a million for the backup.
It wasn't until we had a minor Palace Revolt and all of the pilots refused to fly enmasse that we made any progress after losing an airplane. We agreed we wouldn't fly in anything less than a 1/4 mile vis .... when the legal min was 2 miles. A quarter mile seemed like we'd all moved to the retirement home after what we had been working in before that. As a part of the "negotiation process" I had to threaten to get a CTV & CBC TV news crew on site before they decided to start talking sense.
Fog
LOL!I don't mean to blow nice white puffy clouds of smoke up everyones butt about how great DoT inspectors are, but to look at every last one of them as "The Devil's Spawn" with the symbol 666 tattooed above their ears sent as emmisaries to make way for the coming of the aviation anti-christ is just pure bs...
I had a couple of experiences with a TC individual on the west cosat that fit that description.
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Elbarto:
Just got the word I'm out of here in the morning for the home 'drome and I haven't seen any reference info posted yet. I sure hope you weren't just slinging bullroar for the entertainment value of sticking a canoe paddle into a big vat of excrement and giving it a stir, or pass along erroneous "guidance" to some newbie that might get him into a world of needless hurt.
When I get home and return to my regular life's schedule I won't be posting anywhere near as frequently as I've been able to for the last week or so and I don't want to miss your material.
Cat ...have enjoyed the interaction, recollections and navel gazing over the last while. There's something to be said for the mental excersize of contemplating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
All the best to you with your float training improvement program ...also, that northern spot where they should sent those disfunctional Inspectors should have its name changed from Ellesmere Island to ". Island" and use it as a "DoT Penal Colony" ... LOL.
Fog
Just got the word I'm out of here in the morning for the home 'drome and I haven't seen any reference info posted yet. I sure hope you weren't just slinging bullroar for the entertainment value of sticking a canoe paddle into a big vat of excrement and giving it a stir, or pass along erroneous "guidance" to some newbie that might get him into a world of needless hurt.
When I get home and return to my regular life's schedule I won't be posting anywhere near as frequently as I've been able to for the last week or so and I don't want to miss your material.
Cat ...have enjoyed the interaction, recollections and navel gazing over the last while. There's something to be said for the mental excersize of contemplating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
All the best to you with your float training improvement program ...also, that northern spot where they should sent those disfunctional Inspectors should have its name changed from Ellesmere Island to ". Island" and use it as a "DoT Penal Colony" ... LOL.
Fog
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
CD:
Thanks for taking the time to post the link to other info and I recall reading that one on the forum when it was still a hot button item. I was already aware of that material from the Aeronautics Act and have no big heartburn with what is says ... it appears to be a lawful act which has been passed by Parliament after considerable review and debate.
What I'm waiting for is something which supports Elbarto's contention that ramp checks & inspections are illegal ... a Supreme Court case, a CAT ruling, a copy of an internal leaked memo from a "Deep Throat" or something (anything) which invalidates the Aeronautics Act and supports his statement that ramp checks are illegal and we pilots are having our rights trampled on by doing anything less than telling Inspectors to "Piss up a rope G Man" if I'm asked by an Inspector to have a look at my airplane and documents. If its true, then it has some serious ramifications within the industry.
I think I smell the faint aroma of BS on the wind. Perhaps as I follow it upwind aways, the smell will become stronger.
Fog
Thanks for taking the time to post the link to other info and I recall reading that one on the forum when it was still a hot button item. I was already aware of that material from the Aeronautics Act and have no big heartburn with what is says ... it appears to be a lawful act which has been passed by Parliament after considerable review and debate.
What I'm waiting for is something which supports Elbarto's contention that ramp checks & inspections are illegal ... a Supreme Court case, a CAT ruling, a copy of an internal leaked memo from a "Deep Throat" or something (anything) which invalidates the Aeronautics Act and supports his statement that ramp checks are illegal and we pilots are having our rights trampled on by doing anything less than telling Inspectors to "Piss up a rope G Man" if I'm asked by an Inspector to have a look at my airplane and documents. If its true, then it has some serious ramifications within the industry.
I think I smell the faint aroma of BS on the wind. Perhaps as I follow it upwind aways, the smell will become stronger.
Fog
-
Big Bird Anonymous
- Rank 3
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 6:36 am
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Yah Mon!
Jimmy Buffet -Jamaica Mistaka ....Which states in part ....
I fly, I sail, I throw caution to the wind
and drift like a stratus cloud above the Carribean...
but every now and then the dragons come to call
& just when you least expect it you'll be dodging cannonballs ....
I got a big suspicion about ammunition and I never forget to duck...
...it was abeautiful day, the kind you'd love to toast,
We were tree top flying moving west along the coast,
and we landed in the water, just about my favourite thrill,
When some asshole started firing as we taxied to Negril
....we had only come for chicken, we were not the ganja plane...
Well you should have seen their faces when they finally realized, we were not some coked up cowboys sporting guns & alibis...
...they shot from the lighthouse, they shot from the highway, they shot from the top of the cliff,
They'd all gone haywire, we're catching fire and there wasn't even a splif!
Great tune. I just happened to have it already loaded on my laptop on site with me!
Respect Mon!
The Old Fogducker
Jimmy Buffet -Jamaica Mistaka ....Which states in part ....
I fly, I sail, I throw caution to the wind
and drift like a stratus cloud above the Carribean...
but every now and then the dragons come to call
& just when you least expect it you'll be dodging cannonballs ....
I got a big suspicion about ammunition and I never forget to duck...
...it was abeautiful day, the kind you'd love to toast,
We were tree top flying moving west along the coast,
and we landed in the water, just about my favourite thrill,
When some asshole started firing as we taxied to Negril
....we had only come for chicken, we were not the ganja plane...
Well you should have seen their faces when they finally realized, we were not some coked up cowboys sporting guns & alibis...
...they shot from the lighthouse, they shot from the highway, they shot from the top of the cliff,
They'd all gone haywire, we're catching fire and there wasn't even a splif!
Great tune. I just happened to have it already loaded on my laptop on site with me!
Respect Mon!
The Old Fogducker
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Elbarto:
Times up bub ... I'm hitting the sack but before I do I have to lean on the Bullshit Horn and call the game over by default since you failed to show up on the field for the final period of the game before you packed up your equipment bag and went home with your tail between your legs.
So for those who have followed this, when it comes time for you to be ramped, bear in mind that the Aeronautics Act empowers Inspectors to look at your documents and aircraft for any obvious safety defects for the protection of your passengers.
Regards to all,
Fog
Times up bub ... I'm hitting the sack but before I do I have to lean on the Bullshit Horn and call the game over by default since you failed to show up on the field for the final period of the game before you packed up your equipment bag and went home with your tail between your legs.
So for those who have followed this, when it comes time for you to be ramped, bear in mind that the Aeronautics Act empowers Inspectors to look at your documents and aircraft for any obvious safety defects for the protection of your passengers.
Regards to all,
Fog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" So for those who have followed this, when it comes time for you to be ramped, bear in mind that the Aeronautics Act empowers Inspectors to look at your documents and aircraft for any obvious safety defects for the protection of your passengers. "
I believe that you can refuse them entry to any property unless they have a search warrant.
An aircraft is property.
Lets see how this gets interpreted by others here.
Cat
I believe that you can refuse them entry to any property unless they have a search warrant.
An aircraft is property.
Lets see how this gets interpreted by others here.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Cat:
I know I said I was going to hit the rack, but my sleep cycle is all screwed up by hanging around doing not much and staying up late for the last few days ... so it'll likely be a long time before I'm able to get the brain to settle down enough to log some horizontal time in the fart sack. Unfortunately I don't have a gorgeous blonde to excersize me like a gelding in the paddock before being put into the box stall for the night.
Sorry, but they only need a search warrant to enter a private residence....a "dwelling house" as the term goes. Any airplane, building, Hangar, etc is fair game for not needing a search warrant.
You can indeed refuse them entry when they ask to enter your airplane that they've just watched land and taxi up to the tiedowns on the ramp, but you are then treading on possible obstruction charges....especially if there is some "probable cause" like looking in the windows and the load is stacked up on the seats without tiedowns, or see 15 female pax get off with a baby in each of ther arms in a Cessna 402 (for a total pax count of 45 sob) for example. ... yes, I'm being silly with the example. In that case one of them would stay with the airplane and other would contact the RCMP and a Justice to get a warrant.
Take a look at the links CD provided earlier and the Enforcement manual explains that part .. I just read it this afternoon while I was looking for the info Elbarto alluded to. In a way, its actually interesting stuff.
I might read it again .. along with a few of the CARs ... that will cure the insomnia for sure!
Fog
I know I said I was going to hit the rack, but my sleep cycle is all screwed up by hanging around doing not much and staying up late for the last few days ... so it'll likely be a long time before I'm able to get the brain to settle down enough to log some horizontal time in the fart sack. Unfortunately I don't have a gorgeous blonde to excersize me like a gelding in the paddock before being put into the box stall for the night.
Sorry, but they only need a search warrant to enter a private residence....a "dwelling house" as the term goes. Any airplane, building, Hangar, etc is fair game for not needing a search warrant.
You can indeed refuse them entry when they ask to enter your airplane that they've just watched land and taxi up to the tiedowns on the ramp, but you are then treading on possible obstruction charges....especially if there is some "probable cause" like looking in the windows and the load is stacked up on the seats without tiedowns, or see 15 female pax get off with a baby in each of ther arms in a Cessna 402 (for a total pax count of 45 sob) for example. ... yes, I'm being silly with the example. In that case one of them would stay with the airplane and other would contact the RCMP and a Justice to get a warrant.
Take a look at the links CD provided earlier and the Enforcement manual explains that part .. I just read it this afternoon while I was looking for the info Elbarto alluded to. In a way, its actually interesting stuff.
I might read it again .. along with a few of the CARs ... that will cure the insomnia for sure!
Fog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Fog :
This is a slippery slope we can find ourselves on when discussing exactly what TC can and can't do on a ramp check.
All your suppositions so far have been directed at the pilot being in a position where there is sufficient evidence that the pilot is in contrevention of the regulations.
However if you are not in contrevention of any regulations that are dangerous to the public and TC demands access to your airplane I would do the following.
They must ask for documents, I would produce them.
If they demanded access to my airplane I would ask them on what grounds are you asking access, do you have reason to believe that I am in contrevention of any regulation and if so what regulation?
Unless they could tell me what regulation they think I am in contrevention of I would refuse access and be on my way.
But before leaving I would advise them that any further demands on their part would result in my immediately contacting Ottawa anfd filing an harrassment charge.
And that action Fog is filed outside TCCA and gets results....I've used it and believe me it shakes up their day.
So in closing your posts are directed at the guilty, mine are directed at the innocent.
That gives the troops a balanced discussion on this subject.
Have a good sleep and lets chat again.
Your old colleauge....Cat
This is a slippery slope we can find ourselves on when discussing exactly what TC can and can't do on a ramp check.
All your suppositions so far have been directed at the pilot being in a position where there is sufficient evidence that the pilot is in contrevention of the regulations.
However if you are not in contrevention of any regulations that are dangerous to the public and TC demands access to your airplane I would do the following.
They must ask for documents, I would produce them.
If they demanded access to my airplane I would ask them on what grounds are you asking access, do you have reason to believe that I am in contrevention of any regulation and if so what regulation?
Unless they could tell me what regulation they think I am in contrevention of I would refuse access and be on my way.
But before leaving I would advise them that any further demands on their part would result in my immediately contacting Ottawa anfd filing an harrassment charge.
And that action Fog is filed outside TCCA and gets results....I've used it and believe me it shakes up their day.
So in closing your posts are directed at the guilty, mine are directed at the innocent.
That gives the troops a balanced discussion on this subject.
Have a good sleep and lets chat again.
Your old colleauge....Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Well here it is. Read carefully.
First, the law as it applies.
1. CARS are just regulations. Period. They are not law. They are based on the Aeronautics Act, so when looking at this type of situation we have to go to the Aeronautics Act. Section 8.7 of the Aeronautics Act deals with search and seizure. I am not going to go verbatim into, the essential points are as follows. Secion. 487 and 492 of the CCC apply with regard to search warrents (ie. cause must be shown), and section 8.7 also indicates casue.
2. The important point here is that there must be cause. They can not be random. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which takes prec edence over the Aeronautics Act (Section 8 and 9) provides Canadains with protection against search and seizure without cause.
It may take a court case to the supreme court to estabblish this, more of which I will discuss later.
So the law does not , or should not allow it. How are they doing it then.
Well, first of all, that nice person who approaches you on the ramp is not well versed in the legal nicities of the situation. They have CARS on their side, and many of the honestly think that regulations are law. However, if they ask you nicely..."may I have a look at your documents?", and you say "yes", you have waived your rights. So what to do.
a. Ask the inspector if they have any reason to believe you are in violation or have violated the Aeronautics Act?" If they say yes, get specfics. If they say no, walk away. Dont argue. Dont argue....did I mention dont argue. Walk away. And take notes. Get the inspectors name. Confirm that they are who they say they are. Get the time. Dont...and I mean dont write stuff like...and I told him...stick to the facts as to what was actually said
What will the inspector do. They will occassionally threaten (and you may deem it a threat) to call in the police. Walk away. If they do call the police and you nicely explain to the officer that you were being detained without cause, show the officer your notes (keep touching them), 90% of the time that will end it. Occassionally you will find some gung ho officer who will use the line "if your not doing anything wrong why not let them look" My advice is to reply as follows: "I am not doing anything wrong but the TC inspector is trying to deny me my rights s a Canadain. Are you aiding and abbetting him in this endeavor?
.Provinical ombudsman will look at a complaint after the fact, and unfortunatel, to date, no one has tried to ramp me.
I worry because there are so many pilots out there who are so scared of TC that they will let their rights be trampled, and remember, if they do have proper cause, they have rights...this only applies to random ramp checks.
First, the law as it applies.
1. CARS are just regulations. Period. They are not law. They are based on the Aeronautics Act, so when looking at this type of situation we have to go to the Aeronautics Act. Section 8.7 of the Aeronautics Act deals with search and seizure. I am not going to go verbatim into, the essential points are as follows. Secion. 487 and 492 of the CCC apply with regard to search warrents (ie. cause must be shown), and section 8.7 also indicates casue.
2. The important point here is that there must be cause. They can not be random. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which takes prec edence over the Aeronautics Act (Section 8 and 9) provides Canadains with protection against search and seizure without cause.
It may take a court case to the supreme court to estabblish this, more of which I will discuss later.
So the law does not , or should not allow it. How are they doing it then.
Well, first of all, that nice person who approaches you on the ramp is not well versed in the legal nicities of the situation. They have CARS on their side, and many of the honestly think that regulations are law. However, if they ask you nicely..."may I have a look at your documents?", and you say "yes", you have waived your rights. So what to do.
a. Ask the inspector if they have any reason to believe you are in violation or have violated the Aeronautics Act?" If they say yes, get specfics. If they say no, walk away. Dont argue. Dont argue....did I mention dont argue. Walk away. And take notes. Get the inspectors name. Confirm that they are who they say they are. Get the time. Dont...and I mean dont write stuff like...and I told him...stick to the facts as to what was actually said
What will the inspector do. They will occassionally threaten (and you may deem it a threat) to call in the police. Walk away. If they do call the police and you nicely explain to the officer that you were being detained without cause, show the officer your notes (keep touching them), 90% of the time that will end it. Occassionally you will find some gung ho officer who will use the line "if your not doing anything wrong why not let them look" My advice is to reply as follows: "I am not doing anything wrong but the TC inspector is trying to deny me my rights s a Canadain. Are you aiding and abbetting him in this endeavor?
.Provinical ombudsman will look at a complaint after the fact, and unfortunatel, to date, no one has tried to ramp me.
I worry because there are so many pilots out there who are so scared of TC that they will let their rights be trampled, and remember, if they do have proper cause, they have rights...this only applies to random ramp checks.
Interesting subject here. I also see two ways of dealing with the problem that have been suggested or stated. May I suggest another?
If you are stopped and ASKED to sit in a police cruiser car, then that is allowable under law. If you are ORDERED to sit in that cruiser car, then it must be for an "Arrestable Offense". If the reason that you were stopped is not an "Arrestable Offense", then you have had a "False Arrest" committed against your person and if a search of your person was conducted also, then you have had "Assault and Battery" committed against your person. If ORDERED or ASKED to sit in that cruiser, then do so and start taking notes for your memories sake as evidence later on IF you were ORDERED to sit in the cruiser car. You now wait approximately 24 hrs afterwards and until his "system" has had time to digest his logs of the days activities and radio call-ins. At that point you contact a lawyer and have him charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.
For any ramp-check run on me, that is the method that I have used and it would be "Yes Sir", "No Sir" and allow him/her to break as many rules as possible and/or commit as many offfenses against me as they could build-up. Be sure of your Air Law and know exactly when an offense against those Laws is being committed in front of you. Get witnesses to hear/listen to the goings-on, if possible. Engineers, ramp crews, a fellow pilot. etc will suffice nicely. Let them "dig their own grave" as much as they wish and allow the evidence to mount as you watch. It's one thing to get someone by the gonads and squeeze, but it's another thing when you know that you now are getting the power minute by minute to rip those gonads off also in the following hours.......if you so choose.
Point being, SOMETIMES it is best to appear intimidated and/or stupid and allow someone to "dig their own very deep grave" in front of you while keeping your yap shut. That person will not "screw-with-you" again unless THEY are the stupid ones.
If you are stopped and ASKED to sit in a police cruiser car, then that is allowable under law. If you are ORDERED to sit in that cruiser car, then it must be for an "Arrestable Offense". If the reason that you were stopped is not an "Arrestable Offense", then you have had a "False Arrest" committed against your person and if a search of your person was conducted also, then you have had "Assault and Battery" committed against your person. If ORDERED or ASKED to sit in that cruiser, then do so and start taking notes for your memories sake as evidence later on IF you were ORDERED to sit in the cruiser car. You now wait approximately 24 hrs afterwards and until his "system" has had time to digest his logs of the days activities and radio call-ins. At that point you contact a lawyer and have him charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.
For any ramp-check run on me, that is the method that I have used and it would be "Yes Sir", "No Sir" and allow him/her to break as many rules as possible and/or commit as many offfenses against me as they could build-up. Be sure of your Air Law and know exactly when an offense against those Laws is being committed in front of you. Get witnesses to hear/listen to the goings-on, if possible. Engineers, ramp crews, a fellow pilot. etc will suffice nicely. Let them "dig their own grave" as much as they wish and allow the evidence to mount as you watch. It's one thing to get someone by the gonads and squeeze, but it's another thing when you know that you now are getting the power minute by minute to rip those gonads off also in the following hours.......if you so choose.
Point being, SOMETIMES it is best to appear intimidated and/or stupid and allow someone to "dig their own very deep grave" in front of you while keeping your yap shut. That person will not "screw-with-you" again unless THEY are the stupid ones.
